Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.

St.Ack

P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are rough,not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed upgradepath between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get feedbackon the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.

> Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,> perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.>> St.Ack>> P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are rough,> not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed upgrade> path between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get feedback> on the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.>

> +1>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,> > perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.> >> > St.Ack> >> > P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are> rough,> > not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed> upgrade> > path between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get> feedback> > on the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.> >>

> Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,> perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.>> St.Ack>> P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are rough,> not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed upgrade> path between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get feedback> on the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.>-- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)// Software Engineer, Cloudera// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,> perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.>> St.Ack>> P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are rough,> not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed upgrade> path between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get feedback> on the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.>

Also we should warn that the migration code doesn't work (HBASE-8045).

J-D

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,> perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.>> St.Ack>> P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are rough,> not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed upgrade> path between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get feedback> on the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.

> Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,> perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.>> St.Ack>> P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are rough,> not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed upgrade> path between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get feedback> on the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.>

Things basically work. I was going to put an RC for folks to poke at,perhaps this weekend or at least early next week.

St.Ack

P.S. Remember, 0.95.0 releases are "development releases". They are rough,not-for-production, lacking polish and testing, with no guaranteed upgradepath between 0.95.x to 0.95.y. We are putting them out so we get feedbackon the branch that will eventually become 0.96, our next stable offering.

> Fair enough.>>>> ________________________________> From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: HBase Dev List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:32 PM> Subject: Re: Any objections to my putting up a 0.95.0RC?>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > +1> >> > Should we call it "beta" as some things are known not to work?> >>> I'd rather not.>> Rather, lets just make sure that we do the messaging so folks get that odd> number means it is not for production.>> St.Ack>

I'm wondering, what is our goal with this RC? Are we expecting deeptesting like for the 0.94 RCs? Or it's more kind a of internal RC forour own testing? Should we expect also some migration testing (0.94 to0.95)?

Also, will it be possible to have a list of the known issues? Thatmight avoid some noise from too many people re-reporting that?

And last, I agree that we really should put emphasis on the fact thatthis release is a developper release and 0.95 will never be aproduction one.